Robert Aulley v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (SPR 20253717)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 31, 2025 SPR25/3717 Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Records Access Officer Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3910 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Ciollo: I have received the petition of Ralph Aulley appealing the response of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 11, 2025, Mr. Aulley requested the following: [A]ll audio files voiced by [an identified individual] that are stored on, used by, or deployed to the automated announcement systems on Red Line trains, including: [1] Station stop announcements . . .[;] [2] Door operation announcements[;] [3] Safety, informational, and transfer announcements[;] [4] All audio files present on the onboard systems of Red Line trains equipped with automated announcements (including the 01800-series and 01900-series fleets). This request includes any files that exist on the systems, even if they are rarely triggered, rarely played, or not typically heard by passengers, but it does not include unused or scrapped internal recordings. The MBTA responded on December 12, 2025, denying the request in its entirety under Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law. Unsatisfied with the MBTA’s response, Mr. Aulley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3717, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR25/3717 Page 2 December 31, 2025 records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The MBTA’s December 12th Response In its December 12, 2025 response, the MBTA denied Mr. Aulley’s request in its entirety and cited Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law in support of its position. Specifically, the MBTA stated, “[p]lease be advised that your request seeks information that is exempt from disclosure under Massachusetts General Laws ch. 4, sec. 7, clause 26 (n) . . . .” The MBTA additionally explained, “the recordings you seek are for internal use only due to the potential for misuse, operational disruption and public safety jeopardy.” Current Appeal In his December 17, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Aulley contends, “[t]he MBTA has failed to meet its burden of proof to withhold . . . records under Exemption (n)” and “[requests] that the Supervisor of Records order the MBTA to segregate the nonsensitive station/operational announcements and release them.” Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security.

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR25/3717 Page 3 December 31, 2025 G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017). The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA at 290. Upon review of the MBTA’s response, it is unclear how the responsive audio files resemble the records listed as examples in the statute. See PETA, 477 Mass. at 289. Particularly, it is not clear how the audio files resemble “blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings” that relate to security measures. It is also uncertain how the responsive audio files are the type that “a terrorist would find useful to maximize damage” as required under Exemption (n). Where the requested records bear a minimal resemblance to the categories listed in Exemption (n), the burden on the custodian to prove its “reasonable judgment” that disclosure is likely to jeopardize public safety is greatest. See id. at 290 (noting “inverse correlation” between the two prongs of Exemption (n) inquiry). Further, the MBTA did not provide factual heft to support the withholding of the audio files pursuant to Exemption (n). Specifically, the MBTA has not sufficiently explained how disclosure of the responsive audio files are likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. See PETA, at 289-90. It is additionally unclear from the MBTA’s response why the responsive audio files may be withheld in their entirety. It should be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). It is also unclear what types of audio files the MBTA possesses that it is withholding from disclosure. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Here, the MBTA withheld responsive records without identifying each of the records. Therefore, the

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR25/3717 Page 4 December 31, 2025 MBTA must identify the audio files it has in its possession that it withheld under Exemption (n). The MBTA must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the MBTA is ordered to provide Mr. Aulley with a response to his request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Aulley may appeal the substantive nature of the MBTA’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ralph Aulley